NDLI: Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.m. and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Habeas Corpus: Writ petition
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Habeas Corpus: Writ petition of Habeas corpus filed by respondent-father apprehending that her daughter (respondent no.9) aged 26 years was likely to be transported out of the country – Daughter of writ petitioner appeared before the Court and categorically declined to go with her parents and expressed her desire to stay with respondent no.7 – During pendency of writ petition she entered into marriage with appellant – By impugned order, High Court held that a girl aged 24 years is weak and vulnerable and capable of being exploited in many ways and while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction directed her custody to the writ petitioner-father – With these directions, the High Court declared the marriage between the appellant and respondent no.9 as null and void – On appeal, held: The expression of choice is a fundamental right under Arts.19 and 21 of the Constitution, if the said choice does not transgress any valid legal framework – Once that aspect is clear, the enquiry and determination have to come to an end – In a writ of habeas corpus, especially in the instant case, it was absolutely unnecessary to reflect upon the social radicalization – If there is any criminality in any sphere, it is for the law enforcing agency to do the needful but as long as the detenu has not been booked under law to justify the detention which is under challenge, the obligation of the Court is to exercise the celebrated writ that breathes life into our constitutional guarantee of freedom – In the case at hand, the father in his own stand and perception may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own volition, married the appellant – Therefore, High Court completely erred by taking upon itself the burden of annulling the marriage between the appellant and respondent no.9 when both stood embedded to their vow of matrimony – Constitution of India – Arts.19 and 21. (Per Dipak Misra, CJI and A. M. Khanwilkar, J.) Habeas Corpus: Role of writ court in entertaining writ petition of Habeas corpus – Held: The pivotal purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to see that no one is deprived of his/her liberty without sanction of law – It is the primary duty of the State to see that the said right is not sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is not affected by any kind of subterfuge – The role of the Court is to see that the detenu is produced before it, find out about his/her independent choice and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint – The issue is different when the detention is not illegal. (Per Dipak Misra, CJI and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) Habeas Corpus: Writ of Habeas Corpus – If alleged detenu appears before the writ court and states that she was not under illegal confinement, there is no warrant for the Court to proceed further in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 – Exercise of jurisdiction to declare the marriage null and void while entertaining a petition for habeas corpus is plainly in excess of judicial power – Constitution of India – Art.226. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Constitution of India: Art.21 – Right of adult to marry a person of his or her own choice – Jurisdiction of High Court to annul marriage while entertaining writ of habeas corpus – Held: Deprivation of marital status is a matter of serious import and must be strictly in accordance with law – High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 ought not to have embarked on the course of annulling the marriage – The Constitution recognises the liberty and autonomy which inheres in each individual – This includes the ability to take decisions on aspects which define one’s personhood and identity – The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual – Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable – The absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith – The Constitution guarantees to each individual the right freely to practise, profess and propagate religion – Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme – In deciding whether appellant is a fit person for writ petitioner’s daughter to marry, the High Court entered into prohibited terrain – The High Court has transgressed the limits on its jurisdiction in a habeas corpus petition – In the process, there has been a serious transgression of constitutional rights – Habeas corpus – Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Art.16. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Doctrines/Principles: Parens Patriae doctrine – Invocation of – Held: The doctrine has to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the parties before it are either mentally incompetent or have not come of age and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the said parties have either no parent/legal guardian or have an abusive or negligent parent/legal guardian – In the instant case, there was nothing to suggest that respondent no.9 suffered from any kind of mental incapacity or vulnerability – She was absolutely categorical in her submissions and unequivocal in the expression of her choice – Therefore, High Court erred in invoking Parens Patriae jurisdiction. (Per Dipak Misra, CJI and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) Doctrines/Principles: Parens Patriae doctrine – The superior courts, when they exercise their jurisdiction parens patriae do so in the case of persons who are incapable of asserting a free will such as minors or persons of unsound mind – The exercise of that jurisdiction should not transgress into the area of determining the suitability of partners to a marital tie – That decision rests exclusively with the individuals themselves – Neither the state nor society can intrude into that domain – The strength of our Constitution lies in its acceptance of the plurality and diversity of our culture – Intimacies of marriage, including the choices which individuals make on whether or not to marry and on whom to marry, lie outside the control of the state. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Words and phrases: Parens Patriae – Meaning of, discussed. (Per Dipak Misra, CJI and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Honble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 222
Petitioner	Shafin Jahan
Respondent	Asokan K.m. And Ors.
SCR	[2018] 4 S.C.R. 955
Judgement Date	2018-04-09
Case Number	366

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.m. and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Nandakumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.

Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar and Another

Rameshwar Shaw Vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr.

Sapmawia Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Aijal

Hasmukh S/o Bhagwanji M. Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

Kanu Sanyal Vs. Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling & Ors

Adhir Naia Vs. The State of West Bengal

Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.m. and Ors.

Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.m. and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Nandakumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Kerala & Ors.

Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar and Another

Rameshwar Shaw Vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr.

Sapmawia Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Aijal

Hasmukh S/o Bhagwanji M. Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

Kanu Sanyal Vs. Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling & Ors

Adhir Naia Vs. The State of West Bengal

Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.m. and Ors.